Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Tarfon in our Mishnah declares that the off-spring of Mamzeirim (who would normally remain Mamzeirim forever) can be legitimized - by the Mamzer 'marrying' a Shifchah. The child will be an Eved, who, should his master set him free, will be permitted to marry a Yisre'elis.

(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer - even whilst he is an Eved, he will be an Eved Mamzer, and when he is set free, he will remain a Mamzer (and forbidden to marry a Yisre'elis). Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel will later rule like Rebbi Tarfon.

(c) The Isur of 'marrying' a Shifchah would normally be - the La'av of "Lo Yih'yeh Kadesh".

(d) We nevertheless ask whether Rebbi Tarfon does not permit a Mamzer to marry a Shifchah even Lechatchilah - whether the La'av is confined to a *Kasher* Yisrael, or whether, seeing as a Shifchah has the status of an animal, and a Mamzer, after all, is a Yisrael, the La'av extends to him too.

(a) When the Chachamim asked Rebbi Tarfon 'Tiharta es ha'Zecharim ve'Lo Tiharta es ha'Nekeivos' - they meant that a woman would be unlikely to accept such advice, to move to another town and seek ways and means to 'marry' a slave in secret.

(b) We try to prove from here that Rebbi Tarfon must be speaking Bedieved - because if he permitted it Lechatchilah, then a woman would have no more problem doing that than a man.

(c) We refute this proof however, on the grounds that a Mamzeres would be worse off than a Mamzer anyway (even assuming that he is permitted to 'marry' a Shifchah Lechatchilah) - because (even though the child of a Shifchah adopts the status of his mother), this is not the case with the child of an Eved who has no Yichus whatsoever (seeing as the Torah refers to him as an 'Am ha'Domeh la'Chamor').

(a) Rebbi Tarfon said to his Mamzer host - that had he not been married, he would have advised him to do something that would legalize his descendents.

(b) This proves - that Rebbi Tarfon is speaking Lechatchilah (otherwise his belated advice would have been meaningless).

(c) We refute the counter argument, suggesting that Rebbi Tarfon might have meant that he would have advised him to go and steal in order to be sold as an Eved Ivri who would be permitted to live with a Shifchah Cana'anis - on the grounds that, in the days of Rebbi Tarfon, the Din of Eved Ivri was no longer applicable (seeing as it tied up with the Din of Yovel, which was not then in practice - since most Jews were not living in Eretz Yisrael).

(d) Of course stealing is prohibited, and we could have eliminated the suggestion that way, but we chose to do it by means of the Kashya that we actually ask.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer learns that the child of a Mamzer and a Shifchah is an 'Eved Mamzer', from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Lo Yavo *Lo* bi'Kehal Hashem" ('Lo Halach Achar Pesulo'). Rebbi Tarfon however - establishes this Pasuk by a Yisrael who married a Mamzeres (i.e. that the children go after her).

(b) We would otherwise have thought - that, in view of the Pasuk in Bamidbar "le'Mishpechosam le'Veis Avosam", a child always goes after the father.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer counters Rebbi Tarfon's argument. If "Lo" precludes overrides "le'Mishpechosam le'Veis Avosam", he argues - why should it not also override "ha'Ishah vi'Yeladehah Tih'yeh la'Adonehah"?

(d) Rebbi Tarfon disagrees with him however. In his opinion one cannot compare a Yisre'elis and a Shifchah in this regard, because in the latter case, a fetus in the stomach of a Shifchah is comparable to one in the stomach of an animal, so we cannot possibly go after the father (in spite of "Lo").

5)

(a) The four Yuchsin that need to be added to the list of Kohanim, Levi'im, Yisre'elim, Chalalim, Geirim and Charurim, are -Mamzeirim, Nesinim, Shesukim and Asufim.

(b) Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisre'elim are permitted to intermarry, and so are Levi'im, Yisre'elim, Chalalim, Geirim, Charurim. The Tana omits Kohanim from the latter list - because a Kohen may marry neither a Chalalah (on whom there is a La'av), nor a Giyores or a Meshuchreres (who are both assumed to be Zonos).

(c) The final list permits six of the above to intermarry - Geirim, Charurim, Mamzeirim, Nesinim, Shesukim and Asufim.

(d) The Tana chose to say 'Alu mi'Bavel' rather than Alu le'Eretz Yisrael' - corroborating Rebbi Elazar, who said in this regard that Ezra did not leave Bavel before he had purified it like refined flour (leaving behind only those of the purest Yichus).

(a)

1. Chalalim are - Pasul Kohanim who are born from a union of Pesulei Kehunah.
2. Charurim are - synonymousd with Avadim Meshuchrarim.
3. Nesinim are - the offspring of the Giv'onim, who tricked Yehoshua, and whom he subsequently accepted for conversion.

(b) David Hamelech issued the decree forbidding a Nasin to marry a Yisre'elis, after the Giv'onim demonstrated that they did not have the characteristics of a Yisrael.

(c) The Tana of our Mishnah permits a Ger to marry a Mamzer - because he holds 'Kahal Geirim Lo Ikri Kahal'.

(d) According to the Tana Kama ...

1. ... a Shesuki is - someone who recognizes his mother but not his father.
2. ... an Asufi is - a waif (who was found abondoned in the street).

(a) The Tana chose to say 'Alu mi'Bavel' rather than 'Halchu le'Eretz Yisrael' - to teach us by the way that Eretz Yisrael is higher than Bavel.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Kamta ve'Alisa el ha'Makom Asher Yivchar Hashem" (which is speaking in Eretz Yisrael) - that the Beis Hamikdash is the highest spot in Eretz Yisrael.
2. ... "Lo Ye'amar Od Chai Hashem ... Asher He'elah va'Asher Heivi es Zera Beis Yisrael me'Eretz Tzafonah u'mi Kol ha'Aratzos ... ' - that Eretz Yisrael is higher than all other lands.

(c) We learn from the previous words (in the Pasuk in Shoftim) "Divrei Rivos bi'She'arecha, (ve'Kamta ve'Alisa) ... " - that the Pasuk is referring to the Beis Hamikdash (the place where the Sanhedrin sat to judge) and not only to Yerushalayim.

(d)

1. By taking all the Pesulim with him to Eretz Yisrael - Ezra ensured that nobody would intermarry with them, because as long as he was alive, he kept control over them, and later the Sanhedrin (who sat in Lishkas ha'Gazis), would examine the Kohanim and the Levi'im before they began serving, to verify their Yichus.
2. Had they remained in Bavel - a terrible mix-up would have ensued, because there was noone of standing left in Bavel to keep strict control over the Yichus of those who remained.

8)

(a) Abaye reads our Mishnah 'Alu mi'Bavel', as it appears in our text. The amended version of our Mishnah, according to Rava is - 'He'elum mi'Bavel'.

(b) They might be arguing over Rebbi Elazar's statement (Lo Alah Ezra ... ', with which Rava agrees, and Abaye does not). On the other hand, both Amora'im might agree with Rebbi Elazar, and when Abaye says 'Alu mi'Bavel', he means that after Ezra separated them, they went to Eretz Yisrael of their own accord.

(c) When Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel says ...

1. ... 'Kol Aratzos Iysah le'Eretz Yisrael', he means - that compared to Eretz Yisrael (whose Yichus was controlled by the Kohanim on the Sanhedrin), the Yichus of other countries was like a dough (comprising a mixture of flour, water, salt and bran).
2. ... ve'Eretz Yisrael Iysah le'Bavel', he means - that compared to Bavel (whose Yichus had been sorted out by Ezra as we explained), Eretz Yisrael was like a dough.

(d) Even if the correct version in our Mishnah is 'He'elum' (like Rava), the second statement is correct, because even though all those who accompanied Ezra to Eretz Yisrael would have known who they were and would have kept their distance, that would only pertain to that generation, but those of the next generation would have forgotten which families Ezra had invalidated.

(a) When, on the way to Eretz Yisrael, they arrived at the river that flowed to Ahavah - Ezra discovered that there were no Levi'im who were fit to do the Avodah (i.e. to play the instruments in the Beis Hamikdash).

(b) What marked the Levi'im that he did discover there - was the fact that they were the ones who had cut off their thumbs in Bavel, to avoid "singing the songs of Hashem in a foreign land").

(c) Even according to Rava, who maintains that Ezra had sorted out the people before leaving, it is not surprising that he did not know about this beforehand - because he only took note of those whose Yichus was Pasul but not those who were Kasher.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Vayeishvu ha'Kohanim ve'ha'Levi'im u'Min ha'Am ... be'Areihem" - that Kohanim, Levi'im and Yisre'elim accompanied Ezra from Bavel to Yerushalayim.
2. ... "u'mi'B'nei ha'Kohanim B'nei Chavayah ... Eileh Bikshu Chesavam ha'Misyachsim ve'Lo Nimtza'u, va'Yigo'alu min ha'Kehunah" - that Chalalim went with him too.

(b) Hatirshasa (alias Nechemyah ben Chachalyah) permitted them to continue eating - Kodshei ha'G'evul (i.e. Terumah), as they had done in Bavel

(c) We query this from those who hold that once a Kohen eats Terumah, his Yichus is automatically assumed to be impeccable ('Ma'alin mi'Terumah le'Yuchsin') to which we reply - that this is not a problem here, because, since they had lost their Chazakah re. Kodshei Mizbe'ach, nobody would make any such assumptions.

(a) Despite the fact that there is no reason to issue any decrees against the Kohanim, the significance of the statement 'Gedolah Chazakah' is - that whereas before, they were only eating Terumah de'Rabbanan now they were permitted to eat Terumah d'Oraysa.

(b) Alternatively, we add, they were in fact, restricted to Terumah de'Rabbanan, but were forbidden to eat Terumah d'Oraysa.

1. ... Terumah d'Oraysa is - Terumas Chutz la'Aretz.
2. ... Terumah de'Rabbanan - Terumah of corn, wine and oil of Eretz Yisrael.

(c) According to this opinion, the significance of 'Gedolah Chazakah' is - the fact that, even though there was now good reason to forbid them to eat even Terumah de'Rabbanan (on account of Terumah d'Oraysa), Chazal did not do so, due to 'Gedolah Chazakah'.

(d) We reconcile this with the Pasuk where Hatirshasa forbade those Kohanim to eat Kodesh ha'Kodashim, implying that they were permitted to eat everything else (including Terumah d'Oraysa) - by establishing "Kodesh ha'Kodashim" to mean Terumah and Chazeh ve'Shok of Shelamim (as we shall now see).

(a) When the Torah writes ...

1. ... "ve'Chol Zar Lo Yochal *Kodesh*" - it is referring to Terumah (because that is what the Torah is talking about).
2. ... "u'Bas Kohen Ki Sih'yeh le'Ish Zar, Hi bi'Serumas *ha'Kodashim* Lo Sochel" - it is referring to what is 'Moram min ha'Kodashim' (separated from Kodshim), which is the Chazeh and the Shok (the chest and the right calf) of every Shelamim.

(b) We learn from this latter Pasuk - that, even though a bas Kohen (who married a Yisrael and whose husband died or divorced her leaving her without children), returns to her father's house to eat Terumah, she may not eat Chazeh ve'Shok.